Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside an acquittal and convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 408 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was a clerk in the Imperial Bank of India at Allahabad and was charged with criminal breach of trust in respect of valuable securities amounting to Rs. 7,410 odd, and with intent to defraud, destroying, altering, mutilating and falsifying accounts and other papers during January to July 1946. The Additional Sessions Judge at Allahabad tried the case with a jury of five. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty, and the Sessions Judge accepted the verdict and acquitted the appellant on 31 July 1950. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the High Court. The memorandum of appeal contained only one ground: 'that the order of acquittal is against the weight of evidence on the record and contrary to law.' The High Court allowed the appeal on 12 August 1953, convicted the appellant under both sections, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of ten thousand rupees under Section 408 with a default sentence of one year, and rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 477A, the sentences to run consecutively. Out of the fine, if realized, seven thousand rupees was directed to be paid to the Imperial Bank of India as compensation. The High Court refused a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court, but the appellant obtained special leave on 15 December 1953. Before the Supreme Court, two contentions were raised: first, that the appeal before the High Court was incompetent because the memorandum of appeal did not specify errors of law as required under Section 418 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; second, that the trial in the Sessions Court was no trial in the eye of law because the jurors were not sufficiently versed in English to decide the main question of authorship of the forged documents. The Supreme Court held that although the memorandum of appeal was wholly inadequate, the defect was not such as to render it null and void, as Section 419 of the Code did not require specification of grounds. However, the Court strongly disapproved the prevailing practice of filing vague grounds, noting that a memorandum of appeal is meant to be a succinct statement of grounds and a notice to the court and respondent. On the second contention, the Court relied on the High Court's own findings that the case involved a large volume of documentary evidence almost all in English, and that the decision rested upon determining by whom the various documents were written or prepared. An inquiry revealed that out of the five jurors, two did not have sufficient knowledge of English to decide the question of authorship satisfactorily. The Court held that the trial was coram non judice, following Ras Behari Lal v. The King Emperor, and that the question of prejudice did not arise because it was not a mere irregularity but a mis-trial. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the acquittal was restored.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeals in Jury Trials - Sections 418 and 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Memorandum of appeal need not be rejected for failing to specify errors of law under Section 419, but the practice of taking vague grounds is disapproved; a bald ground that the acquittal is against weight of evidence and contrary to law is wholly inadequate; Held that the defect did not render the memorandum null and void; however, such practice wastes judicial time and surprises the respondent (Paras 1-5). B) Criminal Trial - Jury Trial - Juror Competence - Sections 269(2), 367, 418 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Sections 408, 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Trial coram non judice where jurors lacked sufficient acquaintance with English to determine authorship of forged English documents; this was not a mere irregularity but a mis-trial, and the question of prejudice did not arise; followed Ras Behari Lal v. The King Emperor (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
(1) Whether the State's appeal to the High Court was competent when the memorandum of appeal contained only a bald ground and no specific error of law under Section 418 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (2) Whether the trial before the Sessions Court was void as coram non judice because the jurors were not sufficiently versed in English to decide the main question of authorship of forged documents.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the second ground, holding that the trial before the Sessions Court was coram non judice due to the jury's incompetence to decide the authorship of the English forged documents. The High Court conviction and sentence were set aside and the acquittal was restored.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Under Section 418 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1898
- an appeal from a jury trial lies on a matter of law only
- a memorandum of appeal must succinctly state grounds
- a bald ground that the order is against weight of evidence and contrary to law is inadequate though not fatal if no specific provision requires enumeration
- trial by jury where jurors lack sufficient knowledge of English to determine authorship of English documents is coram non judice
- not mere irregularity
- in such a case prejudice need not be shown.
